@ArizonaHot - Good gracious! (url=http://www.ithkuil.net/index.htm) Ithkuil
proper URL is without the triple w: http://ithkuil.net
Hi Curt! That's news to me.
I always thought that was an SEO consideration for the site owner rather than a visitor issue.
It's true that, from a search engine perspective, there is
a difference between xyz.com
. But this isn't something that affects anything on the user level unless xyz.com
is a subdomain
- in which case the leading www would need to be omitted when browsing to it. However, last I heard, "best practice" was to use the www.xyz.com
form as your canonical URL - unless
you already had a Google ranking. And if you did, you needed to find out which format got more hits, and then redirect the other to the more popular one.
Since I only very rarely run into situations where the leading www has to be removed
in order to get to a website, my rule of thumb is to include it. In the past, most site developers I've talked to said they use the "www + redirect" trick for SEO purposes. So from a visitor's perspective "to www or not to www" shouldn't matter either way.
But it's been a while since I was last involved in web stuff. Has the above convention since changed?
Note: I always test the links in anything I post so at least I know they work even if they're not 'proper' URLS. Besides, most forum and e-mail software will assume a text string that starts with 'www.' is a URL and aromatically treat it as a link. So I think it's generally more convenient to keep the www in a posting unless it causes problems.